Dear Mason: Thank you for repeating and clarifying the RrSG position. I am happy to repeat the IPC position, for convenience to the list, and add some personal comments. The IPC clearly supports the strawman and limited preventative registration proposals. We are disappointed at the level of disparagement of these proposals on the Council in light of the fact that representatives from each stakeholder group participated in Brussels and Los Angeles. Compromises in the strawman proposal emerged from give and take negotiation among representatives of all stakeholder groups. Stakeholder groups that now assert that rights protection mechanisms should not have been revisited at all cast doubt on the good faith of the negotiators they sent to Brussels and Los Angeles. Looking at the transcript from our teleconference, I realize that I used the word “consensus” and that particular word carries a bit of baggage in the ICANN community, especially with respect to mandatory “consensus policies” referenced in the various contracts in this space. No one is suggesting that “consensus policies” were reached or even discussed in the meetings with Mr. Chehadé. Rather, quite the opposite, these were implementation meetings, not policy-making meetings. In addition, no one is suggesting that participation in the meetings with Mr. Chehadé formulates complete acceptance of the proposals. Personally, I think the primary point—as articulated by Mr. Chehadé—is that stakeholder representatives participated in a collaborative process focused strictly on common ground to advance the discussion on implementation solutions. Rather than moving forward together as Mr. Chehadé has asked, it is disappointing to see this entire process called into question and the entirety of strawman proposal disparaged by Council and stakeholder representatives. Finally, could you please clarify the statement that the RrSG would not at all characterize any meeting on the strawman as a negotiation? Are we to understand that RrSG representatives sat on the sidelines and were there just to “listen to staff’s input”? Best regards, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe From: Mason Cole <mcole@5x5com.com<mailto:mcole@5x5com.com>> Date: December 28, 2012, 11:33:53 AM EST To: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Comments regarding the strawman All -- I don't at all mean to pick on Brian personally, but I became aware earlier of a news article covering our most recent council meeting. (A side note: we should remember that the media and others listen in on our call, and our conversations are public and could end up in news coverage.) The article says: Brian Winterfeldt, Steptoe & Johnson, an IPC representative on the GNSO Council, said that the IPC does not agree with all points of the draft response. The IPC understood the strawman proposal to be the product of negotiations that resulted in a consensus among the participants—including representatives from all ICANN constituencies, Winterfeldt said. “Stakeholders who now say that rights protections should not be revisited cast doubt on the good faith of negotiations.” For avoidance of doubt, I want to restate the RrSG's understandings. Our representatives in the meeting were there at Fadi's request to discuss the trademark clearinghouse and to listen to staff's input on the strawman. They would not at all characterize that (or any meeting on the strawman) as a negotiation, nor would they say consensus exists on the content of the proposals. It was clear there would be an opportunity for comment following the meetings. Our participation in those discussions can't be presumed to be acceptance of the proposals or the process by which they were considered. I made that point on our 20 December call, I believe, but thank you for indulging my repeating it. Mason